Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:28 am
As I had always stated, your views are too shallow, narrow and dogmatic.

The illusion of a mirage is that of an empirical illusion.

The one like you who claimed there is a real independent thing-in-itself is infected with a Transcendental Illusion.
Here is where Kant differentiated between empirical and transcendental illusion;



When I refer to co-created means what is reality is inevitably entangled with the human conditions.


Kant does recognize an "independent reality" necessarily within the common sense perspective BUT this is only a subset of a reality that is entangled within the human conditions from a deeper more refined perspective.

Here is a clue which hopefully you can get an insight.
Under normal conventional perspective most things are by themselves separated [independent] from other things.

If there are two persons standing two feet apart they are definitely separated by a space.
But if we have an electron camera looking at them, we don't see they are separately distinct but rather both are in a 'soup' of atoms and molecules and are not distinctly independent of each other. The two persons in that 'soup' of atoms are merely denser clusters of atoms and molecules.
If we look at things like tables and chairs from the electron perspectives they are not independent of each other and also the observers.
This is a false analogy. What the electron camera shows us is the atomic structure of what we call reality.
And this knowledge is not 'entangled with the human conditions'. We don't co-create what we call reality at any level, from the macro 'Newtonian' down to the quantum mechanical. (Who observes the observer effect?) Kant's argument about knowledge is about all knowledge: what can be known. And the claim that what can be known can't be separate or different from our way of knowing it is false - or at least not shown to be true.
You are merely shortsighted, thus unable to see the point.

What is the reality of the atomic structure?
What are the real substance that make up atoms?
Ans: Electrons, protons and neutrons.
What are the real substance that make up electrons, protons and neutrons?
Quarks and sub-atomic particles?
What are the real substance Quarks and sub-atomic particles
Physicists: we are not sure, could be particles or waves depending on the conditions of the humans who engage with them.

Physicists had already surrendered and resigned to the fact that it is meaningless to seek the true-reality of reality.
Kant and others [Buddhism >2500 years ago] had already been convinced that to chase for an independent real thing of reality is a lost cause since what the realists are chasing is merely an illusion [transcendental not empirical] driven by psychological impulses.

What you are claiming as an absolute independent real thing is merely an assumption, opinion and belief.
I have challenged you [as Kant had challenged others] to prove that such a thing exists but you have not provided any justifications but merely making more noises.

My analogy above has two perspectives to it;
First, you cannot deny the separated things or person are absolutely independent from each other via an electron camera.

Second, you also cannot deny the thing and the person observing the thing are also absolutely independent from each other via an electron camera. The entanglement part is when this interdependent is stretch to the time of our ancestors since >4 billion years ago all existing within the same electron soup of the universe.
No, you misunderstand the issue. Kant didn't challenge us to prove that 'external reality' exists. Rather, he thought it a scandal that, given empiricist skepticism, we supposedly can't prove it.

But his solution - the supposed Copernican revolution with regard to what we call knowledge - the object orbits the subject - doesn't solve anything, because it assumes the mind/body dualism-delusion that informed empiricist skepticism in the first place.

And meanwhile, this has no bearing on the possibility of moral facts, and so moral objectivity.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 11:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:02 am

This is a false analogy. What the electron camera shows us is the atomic structure of what we call reality.
And this knowledge is not 'entangled with the human conditions'. We don't co-create what we call reality at any level, from the macro 'Newtonian' down to the quantum mechanical. (Who observes the observer effect?) Kant's argument about knowledge is about all knowledge: what can be known. And the claim that what can be known can't be separate or different from our way of knowing it is false - or at least not shown to be true.
You are merely shortsighted, thus unable to see the point.

What is the reality of the atomic structure?
What are the real substance that make up atoms?
Ans: Electrons, protons and neutrons.
What are the real substance that make up electrons, protons and neutrons?
Quarks and sub-atomic particles?
What are the real substance Quarks and sub-atomic particles
Physicists: we are not sure, could be particles or waves depending on the conditions of the humans who engage with them.

Physicists had already surrendered and resigned to the fact that it is meaningless to seek the true-reality of reality.
Kant and others [Buddhism >2500 years ago] had already been convinced that to chase for an independent real thing of reality is a lost cause since what the realists are chasing is merely an illusion [transcendental not empirical] driven by psychological impulses.

What you are claiming as an absolute independent real thing is merely an assumption, opinion and belief.
I have challenged you [as Kant had challenged others] to prove that such a thing exists but you have not provided any justifications but merely making more noises.

My analogy above has two perspectives to it;
First, you cannot deny the separated things or person are absolutely independent from each other via an electron camera.

Second, you also cannot deny the thing and the person observing the thing are also absolutely independent from each other via an electron camera. The entanglement part is when this interdependent is stretch to the time of our ancestors since >4 billion years ago all existing within the same electron soup of the universe.
No, you misunderstand the issue. Kant didn't challenge us to prove that 'external reality' exists. Rather, he thought it a scandal that, given empiricist skepticism, we supposedly can't prove it.

But his solution - the supposed Copernican revolution with regard to what we call knowledge - the object orbits the subject - doesn't solve anything, because it assumes the mind/body dualism-delusion that informed empiricist skepticism in the first place.

And meanwhile, this has no bearing on the possibility of moral facts, and so moral objectivity.
Nope you got it wrong, obviously, since you have not researched into Kant's work thoroughly.

Note Kant's point here;
Kant in CPR wrote:However harmless Idealism may be considered in respect of the essential aims of Metaphysics (though, in fact, it is not thus harmless),
it still remains a scandal to Philosophy and to Human Reason-in-General that the Existence of Things outside us (from which we derive the whole Material of Knowledge, even for our Inner Sense) must be accepted merely on Faith,
and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their Existence, we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof.
CPR B54
As far as Kant is concern as above in B54, the scandal is in reference to 'idealism' which the metaphysical realists condemned.
Kant thus turned around and accused the metaphysical realists their pseudo "realism" is a scandal to philosophy when the metaphysical realists are unable to prove their claim that things-in-themselves exist in an external world independent of the human conditions [sensibility].
This is not directly related to Skeptical Empiricism.

Kant was accused by his opponents to have adopted Berkeley's subjective idealism and he denied it and stated his accusers were mistaken so he explained his position re his transcendental idealism and Copernican Revolution.
It is not 'the object orbit the subject' which can be very misleading, rather it is the object that is entangled with the subject, thus not independent from the subject.
This position re 'entanglement' is more realistic which is the same as what the Buddhists, QM , Protagoras [man is the measure of all things] and others of the likes are claiming.

Meanwhile your metaphysical realist position of independent things-in-themselves, even a kindergarten kid can understand things are external to himself and other humans!
At the extreme we have an independent God which has contributed to much evil and violence throughout the history of mankind and potentially theists could exterminate the human species in the future.

Re Moral facts;
All facts, truths and knowledge & reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
All FSKs are entangled with humans in various degrees of credibility.
So a moral FSK is possible.
Thus moral facts* emerging from a credible moral FSK is possible.
This is in agreement with Kant's empirical realism plus transcendental idealism.

*I have demonstrated such moral facts are physical and objective initially derived from the scientific FSK re mirror neurons which are related to Empathy [a critical element of morality].

Kant's morality do not rely on objective moral facts since during his time there was no neuroscience thus no knowledge of mirror neurons.
Kant borrowed Plato's ideas and ideals for his morality.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:22 am
Re Moral facts;
All facts, truths and knowledge & reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Nonsense. We describe what we call reality in different ways. But the claim that what we call reality is nothing more than or different from the ways we describe it is ridiculous. And it's certainly not what Kant argued.

All FSKs are entangled with humans in various degrees of credibility.
The metaphors are breeding! What makes a description credible is physical (empirical) evidence from the reality that the description describes. No evidence = no credibility. That's why there is no astrological 'FSK'. There's no astrological knowledge. It's all made up.
So a moral FSK is possible.
The only thing that could make it possible is physical (empirical) evidence for the actual existence of moral facts - features of reality. No evidence = no 'FSK', because it means there's nothing to be known.
Thus moral facts* emerging from a credible moral FSK is possible.
No. Talk of a credible moral 'FSK' is empty question-begging.

But hey, you just keep chucking up this nonsense, and I'll just keep showing why it's nonsense - to the crack of doom.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:22 am All facts, truths and knowledge & reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
All FSKs are entangled with humans in various degrees of credibility.
Your watered down fake version of "objectivity" doesn't support those uses of the word "all".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:22 am
Re Moral facts;
All facts, truths and knowledge & reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Nonsense. We describe what we call reality in different ways. But the claim that what we call reality is nothing more than or different from the ways we describe it is ridiculous. And it's certainly not what Kant argued.
You are not thinking critically at all but merely clinging to your shallow, narrow and dogmatic views of the metaphysical realists' ideology.

Note
Whatever are scientific facts, truths, knowledge & reality are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
Of the best of best, the scientific FKS is the most credible [reliable and trustworthy] as PRESENT.
You just cannot deny the above.
All other facts, truths and knowledge & reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
You also cannot deny the above.
Even Wittgenstein would agree when he stated what are beliefs & knowledge are conditioned upon the Language Game [framework], the human conditions and the human community. [re On Certainty]
Other than that, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Kant claimed whatever is reality [empirical realism] is entangled with the human conditions and system, thus the human framework and system.
One can think of an independent reality-in-itself, but to claim and insist there is a "really-real-reality" that is independent of the human conditions is delusional [like you].
And it's certainly not what Kant argued.
Show me the references from Kant's works on this claims of yours?

All FSKs are entangled with humans in various degrees of credibility.
The metaphors are breeding! What makes a description credible is physical (empirical) evidence from the reality that the description describes. No evidence = no credibility. That's why there is no astrological 'FSK'. There's no astrological knowledge. It's all made up.
So a moral FSK is possible.
The only thing that could make it possible is physical (empirical) evidence for the actual existence of moral facts - features of reality. No evidence = no 'FSK', because it means there's nothing to be known.
You cannot insist there is 'no FSK' which is like there is no "language games."
So it is your ignorance of "what a FSK" is all about that you are spewing your irrational counter against my claim related to FSK.
Btw, I have also associated FSK with FSR i.e. framework and system of Reality [emergent].

All FSKs are entangled with humans in various degrees of credibility.
What is wrong with this principle?

So in principle the astrologer community do operate within a FSK.
It is the same with the Theological FSK and other lesser credible FSKs.
If 'you' don't have the confidence in the astrological FSK, you can assign it ZERO degree of credibility, but you cannot claim absolute certainty, so you have to give it at least a 0.00001% credibility.

Btw, WHO ARE YOU in deciding your claims are absolutely FINAL!
Note this thread I raised,
WHO ARE YOU [present human] in Claiming Your Truth is Final?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35207
Thus moral facts* emerging from a credible moral FSK is possible.
No. Talk of a credible moral 'FSK' is empty question-begging.

But hey, you just keep chucking up this nonsense, and I'll just keep showing why it's nonsense - to the crack of doom.
If you deny the moral FSK you are denying the scientific FSK!

So note my point above [repeated];
You cannot insist there is 'no FSK' which is like there is no "language games."
So it is your ignorance of "what a FSK" is all about that you are spewing your irrational counter against my claim related to FSK.

From the many philosophers [a lot of them] I have read, they often referred to framework and system of knowledge . Wittgenstein is notable with his 'Language Games' re knowledge.
Suggest you research on this topic re Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and Reality [FSR] rather than being arrogant on ignorance.

You are too ignorant and arrogant with your counters and views above [based merely from hearsays from Hume, a mixed of analytic philosophers] and you're a gnat and so kindergartenish in philosophy as evident by your lack of references to any authority in all your counters and views.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:45 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:22 am
Re Moral facts;
All facts, truths and knowledge & reality are conditioned upon a specific FSK.
Nonsense. We describe what we call reality in different ways. But the claim that what we call reality is nothing more than or different from the ways we describe it is ridiculous. And it's certainly not what Kant argued.
You are not thinking critically at all but merely clinging to your shallow, narrow and dogmatic views of the metaphysical realists' ideology.

Note
Whatever are scientific facts, truths, knowledge & reality are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
Of the best of best, the scientific FKS is the most credible [reliable and trustworthy] as PRESENT.
You just cannot deny the above.
I don't. And what makes scientific descriptions credible and reliable is evidence from the reality they describe. Simples.
Even Wittgenstein would agree when he stated what are beliefs & knowledge are conditioned upon the Language Game [framework], the human conditions and the human community. [re On Certainty]
Other than that, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Please don't mangle Wittgenstein's ideas. That quote is from the Tractatus, which he later spent many years reforming, correcting or even repudiating. And you don't understand the significance of language games. (More below.)

Kant claimed whatever is reality [empirical realism] is entangled with the human conditions and system, thus the human framework and system.
One can think of an independent reality-in-itself, but to claim and insist there is a "really-real-reality" that is independent of the human conditions is delusional [like you].
And it's certainly not what Kant argued.
Show me the references from Kant's works on this claims of yours?
Show me where Kant says that reality is how we perceive, know and describe it. He certainly says we can't perceive know and describe reality in any other than the way we do.

All FSKs are entangled with humans in various degrees of credibility.
The metaphors are breeding! What makes a description credible is physical (empirical) evidence from the reality that the description describes. No evidence = no credibility. That's why there is no astrological 'FSK'. There's no astrological knowledge. It's all made up.
So a moral FSK is possible.
The only thing that could make it possible is physical (empirical) evidence for the actual existence of moral facts - features of reality. No evidence = no 'FSK', because it means there's nothing to be known.
You cannot insist there is 'no FSK' which is like there is no "language games."
Wrong. You misunderstand why Wittgenstein introduced the idea of language games - which was to emphasise what he called the autonomy of grammar (language) in the many and various contexts in which we use it - including when we describe reality.
All FSKs are entangled with humans in various degrees of credibility.
What is wrong with this principle?

So in principle the astrologer community do operate within a FSK.
And here's the absurdity of your argument - what's wrong with your principle - in a nutshell. There are no astrological facts, so there's no astrology FSK - framework and system of knowledge. As I've/we've pointed out many times, from the correct observation that what we call facts are context-dependent, you falsely conclude that descriptive contexts create facts. And that's nonsense.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:45 am If you deny the moral FSK you are denying the scientific FSK!
Sounds like it's time to quit with this entire FSK circus of bullshit then.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:40 am Sounds like it's time to quit with this entire FSK circus of bullshit then.
So you are going to lead by example and quit peddling the normative FSK you've been defending all this time?!?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Here's where I think Kantians can go wrong.

Premise: As humans, we have no choice but to perceive, know and describe reality - including our selves - in a human way.
Conclusion: So we can perceive, know and describe only things-as-they-appear-to-us (phenomena), not things-in-themselves (noumena).

So it's my phenomenal body that walks my phenomenal dog. And no thing-in-itself gets any exercise.

Some questions:

1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)

2 If there are no noumena, why are phenomena phenomena? (What happens when we remove one side of a dichotomy or contrast?)

3 If the noumenal is merely a limiting concept, what and where is it, and how does it limit anything?

4 If we can't prove the existence of the 'external world', why do we assume the existence of the 'internal world'? Is the 'I' or the mind noumenal after all? (Descartes vindicated?)

Though it seems plausible, there's something wrong with the premise, which is why the conclusion is always already down the rabbit hole.

And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the existence of so-called moral facts.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:01 pm Here's where I think Kantians can go wrong.

Premise: As humans, we have no choice but to perceive, know and describe reality - including our selves - in a human way.
Conclusion: So we can perceive, know and describe only things-as-they-appear-to-us (phenomena), not things-in-themselves (noumena).

So it's my phenomenal body that walks my phenomenal dog. And no thing-in-itself gets any exercise.
It gets very problematic with other minds. Because everyone who takes this position universalizes about all other minds, not just dogs getting exercise, but VA telling PH what is happening when PH perceives something. PH is part of external reality, but somehow neuroscience and some parts of modern physics make it clear that when PH perceives it must follow a specific pattern and have a specific ontology.

Not only is this fruit of the poison tree, but it is also forgetting that PH is external to VA. He is out there. Yes, for some reason, in dealing with the most complicated ding an sich we have encountered (I mean human minds/brains not you in particular PH) VA knows exactly what is happening out there. His descrptions of what is happening in your perception process are facts.

But if you were to say a stone has quality X - like it weighs 2 kilos - you'd be engaging in the primitive hallucinations of realism.
Some questions:

1 If we can have no vantage point above the fray - the world of phenomena - how can we know they are phenomena and not noumena? (I smell special pleading.)
Yes, it seems like a simpler ontology is both parsimonius and more consistant: solipsism, some for of idealism.
2 If there are no noumena, why are phenomena phenomena? (What happens when we remove one side of a dichotomy or contrast?)
Which leads, I think, to a similar endpoint as my reaction to number one.
4 If we can't prove the existence of the 'external world', why do we assume the existence of the 'internal world'? Is the 'I' or the mind noumenal after all? (Descartes vindicated?)
Or another part of this...what about all those parts of us that we don't identify with - and this varies person to person: urges, stomach pains, habits we can't break, emotions (if we don't identify with them), intrusive thoughts, the unconscious....are those noumena/phenomena? How does the observer know how to distinguish?
Though it seems plausible, there's something wrong with the premise, which is why the conclusion is always already down the rabbit hole.
It's very binary. My perceptions are just my hallucinations. There is no meeting of the inner and the outer, no effects....
And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the existence of so-called moral facts.
Are they noumena or phenomena? And then all the epistemological problems entailed by either choice.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:01 pm And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the existence of so-called moral facts.
For somebody who rejects metaphysics there sure is a lot of excrement coming out of your (metaphorical) mouth. Would you like some toilet paper?

There are two possible universes:

A universe in which morality is objective(A)
A universe in which morality is subjective (B).

Assume we currently live in A. How would human experience change if we suddenly found ourselves living in B?
Assume we currently live in B. How would human experience change if we suddenly found ourselves living in A?

Since you can't actually qualify the differencein experience you don't actually have a clue what you are talking about.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:34 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:01 pm And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the existence of so-called moral facts.
For somebody who rejects metaphysics there sure is a lot of excrement coming out of your (metaphorical) mouth. Would you like some toilet paper?

There are two possible universes:

A universe in which morality is objective(A)
A universe in which morality is subjective (B).

Assume we currently live in A. How would human experience change if we suddenly found ourselves living in B?
Assume we currently live in B. How would human experience change if we suddenly found ourselves living in A?

Since you can't actually qualify the differencein experience you don't actually have a clue what you are talking about.
This is great. It could be an argument for certain human jokes make a transcendant God fart.
A universe in which occasional jokes make God fart (from laughing so hard)(A)
A universe in which occasional jokes do not make God fart (B).

Assume we currently live in A. How would human experience change if we suddenly found ourselves living in B?
Assume we currently live in B. How would human experience change if we suddenly found ourselves living in A?

Since we can't qualify the difference, it is ridiculous to assume that jokes are not making a deity fart. Not even parsimony could lead to such a ridiculous conclusion.

Wait, I got the scenario wrong. It's that a lepton appears on a moon in a parallel universe when we make the right joke.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:43 pm This is great. It could be an argument for certain human jokes make a transcendant God fart.
The game of argumentation is philosophical hogwash. You don't have any truths to bootstrap deductive reasoning with, for that which you call "true premises" is acquired by induction. How many times must this be explained to the slow kids in the house?

Today is Wednesday therefore the color of this sentence is red.

I don't need true premises to arrive at true conclusions - not in this universe. Enough with the delusion.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:43 pm Since we can't qualify the difference, it is ridiculous to assume that jokes are not making a deity fart.
Since you can't qualify the difference it's ridiculous to answer the question in the positive; or the negative. And yet... here you are!

You have no idea how your experience of the world would be different in the event the answer turned out to be one way; or another.
It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one. --William James
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 3:43 pm Not even parsimony could lead to such a ridiculous conclusion.
Parsimony only helps when you ask meaningful questions. The philosophical epistemology is truly and utterly fucked in its viciously-circular methods.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Iwannaplato »

bla, bla, bla....
The sad thing is you have the intelligence to actually make decent posts.
But you have some other goal.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:05 pm bla, bla, bla....
The sad thing is you have the intelligence to actually make decent posts.
But you have some other goal.
I am making decent posts.

I am pointing out THAT morality is so objective the progress is measurable and has been measurable for centuries.

It's as objective as science allows you to get with centuries of data painting a picture for you that 2022 is way better time to be alive than 1522, alas - Philosophy has other goals. And I happen to have the intelligence to call philosophy out its bullshit.

Either you are capable of recognising that the linguistic encoding of laws/rules are a manifestation of our moral predispositions for proper and improper conduct; and those predispositions are consequential, measurable (and therefore objective) or you can get fucked while insisting Philosophy should follow the subjective laws/rules of logic.

It's an all-or-nothing gamble.
Post Reply